Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Another quote from Bill Clinton

Expand Messages
  • Gregory
    Ram, As we know there were many voices raised against the invasion of Iraq. One of my Democratic Senators, Russ Feingold, when voting NO on the war had this to
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 12, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Ram,

      As we know there were many voices raised against the invasion of Iraq.
      One of my Democratic Senators, Russ Feingold, when voting NO on the war
      had this to say.

      "But, Mr. President, I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly
      shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. My colleagues,
      I'm not suggesting there has to be only one justification for such a
      dramatic action. But when the Administration moves back and forth from
      one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the
      case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of
      shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of
      many Americans questioning the Administration's motives in insisting on
      action at this particular time.

      What am I talking about? I'm talking about the spectacle of the
      President and senior Administration officials citing a purported
      connection to al Qaeda one day, weapons of mass destruction the next
      day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on another day, and
      then on some days the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners of war.

      Mr. President, for some of these, we may well be willing to send some
      250,000 Americans in harm's way. For others, frankly, probably not.
      These litanies of various justifications -- whether the original draft
      resolution, the new White House resolution, or regrettably throughout
      the President's speech in Cincinnati -- in my view set the bar for an
      alternative to a U.S. invasion so high that, Mr. President, I'm afraid
      it almost locks in -- it almost requires -- a potentially extreme and
      reckless solution to these problems."

      I think words of this type will be the ones history will review and
      recite when observing the wrong and deadly course our country finally
      took.

      Gregory

      --- In prezveepsenator@yahoogroups.com, "Ram Lau" <ramlau@...> wrote:
      >
      > > That very same Wall Street Journal editorial of November
      > > 18,2005 also has this Clinton quote.
      >
      > I neither thought that going to Iraq was a wise move since the very
      > beginning nor have any intention or motivation to defend the position
      > the Democrats. Most Democrats in Washington are "gutless worms" to
      > paraphrase Cafferty's description on Arlen Specter.
      >
      > I honestly think that the Iraq war has turned the War on Terror into a
      > war that will last for generations and made Orwell's world of 1984 a
      > reality.
      >
      > Ram
      >
    • THOMAS JOHNSON
      Rep. Abraham Lincoln (R.Il) stood before the House of Representatives in 1848 and harshly criticized President Polk for getting us into the Mexican-American
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 14, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Rep. Abraham Lincoln (R.Il) stood before the House of
        Representatives in 1848 and harshly criticized
        President Polk for getting us into the
        Mexican-American War for political purposes, and
        conventional wisdom was that his political career was
        over because he had criticized the administration in a
        time of war.
        President McKinley was against the Spanish-American
        War but the newspapers had public opinion so solidly
        for the war that he knew he would never get re-elected
        if he opposed it. Shame on all the senators that
        supported the war, or rather gave Bush the
        authorization, but shame on the administration for
        getting us into what may turn out to be the biggest
        mistake in US history. And if that wasn't bad enough,
        handling the post-occupation with mind-boggling
        incompetence.

        Tom

        --- Gregory <greggolopry@...> wrote:

        > Ram,
        >
        > As we know there were many voices raised against the
        > invasion of Iraq.
        > One of my Democratic Senators, Russ Feingold, when
        > voting NO on the war
        > had this to say.
        >
        > "But, Mr. President, I am increasingly troubled by
        > the seemingly
        > shifting justifications for an invasion at this
        > time. My colleagues,
        > I'm not suggesting there has to be only one
        > justification for such a
        > dramatic action. But when the Administration moves
        > back and forth from
        > one argument to another, I think it undercuts the
        > credibility of the
        > case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that
        > this practice of
        > shiftinRg justifications has much to do with the
        > troubling phenomenon of
        > many Americans questioning the Administration's
        > motives in insisting on
        > action at this particular time.
        >
        > What am I talking about? I'm talking about the
        > spectacle of the
        > President and senior Administration officials citing
        > a purported
        > connection to al Qaeda one day, weapons of mass
        > destruction the next
        > day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on
        > another day, and
        > then on some days the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners of
        > war.
        >
        > Mr. President, for some of these, we may well be
        > willing to send some
        > 250,000 Americans in harm's way. For others,
        > frankly, probably not.
        > These litanies of various justifications -- whether
        > the original draft
        > resolution, the new White House resolution, or
        > regrettably throughout
        > the President's speech in Cincinnati -- in my view
        > set the bar for an
        > alternative to a U.S. invasion so high that, Mr.
        > President, I'm afraid
        > it almost locks in -- it almost requires -- a
        > potentially extreme and
        > reckless solution to these problems."
        >
        > I think words of this type will be the ones history
        > will review and
        > recite when observing the wrong and deadly course
        > our country finally
        > took.
        >
        > Gregory
        >
        > --- In prezveepsenator@yahoogroups.com, "Ram Lau"
        > <ramlau@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > > That very same Wall Street Journal editorial of
        > November
        > > > 18,2005 also has this Clinton quote.
        > >
        > > I neither thought that going to Iraq was a wise
        > move since the very
        > > beginning nor have any intention or motivation to
        > defend the position
        > > the Democrats. Most Democrats in Washington are
        > "gutless worms" to
        > > paraphrase Cafferty's description on Arlen
        > Specter.
        > >
        > > I honestly think that the Iraq war has turned the
        > War on Terror into a
        > > war that will last for generations and made
        > Orwell's world of 1984 a
        > > reality.
        > >
        > > Ram
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Ram Lau
        ... But the Republicans were then predominantly the liberals. Party switching didn t really happen until Thurmond s switching in the late fifties. Just thought
        Message 3 of 5 , Jun 14, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          > Rep. Abraham Lincoln (R.Il) stood before the House of
          > Representatives in 1848 and harshly criticized
          > President Polk for getting us into the
          > Mexican-American War for political purposes, and
          > <snip>
          > President McKinley was against the Spanish-American
          > War but the newspapers had public opinion so solidly
          > for the war that he knew he would never get re-elected
          > if he opposed it. Shame on all the senators that

          But the Republicans were then predominantly the liberals. Party
          switching didn't really happen until Thurmond's switching in the late
          fifties. Just thought I should mention that.

          Ram
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.